Talk:Stereotype algebra
 | This article was nominated for deletion on April 23, 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect to Topological algebra. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On the suggestion to delete this article edit
Dear 141.30.70.85, you present the situation as if I just made some variations in the definition of topological algebra, and that is all:
which itself just forms a straightforward variation of the idea of a topological algebra
But that is not all. The theory of stereotype algebras has many (and mostly very unexpected) applications. It simplifies many bulky formulations in the theory of topological algebras, for example, the universality property for the group algebras of locally compact groups.
At the same time it reveals unexpected connections between functional analysis and other fields of mathematics, for example, it generalizes the Pontryagin duality to the class of all (not necessarily commutative) affine algebraic groups. Moreover, it gives birth to a common scheme that allows to construct similar dualities in other geometric disciplines, not only in complex geometry, but in differential geometry and in topology as well.
If you say that this is not relevant
I consider this article being just self-promotion of research that is not considered to be relevant by the mathematical research community.
-- then how do you define relevance?
I thought that the relevance of a mathematical notion is proved in publications. If people find some unexpected simplifications in formulations, or some unexpected connections with other fields of mathematics, this already justifies the relevance of the notion and its popularisation among colleagues, am I not right?
If this article doesn't contradict the rules of Wikipedia (what I deduce from the fact that its submission was accepted according to all the necessary procedures), wouldn't it be more honest to find more serious reasons for its deletion? Eozhik (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the template about the deletion following this instruction:
You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.
If this idea remains relevant, I ask its author to speak him/herself here (and to roll back the template if he/she insists). Eozhik (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)